Measure 51
Yes!
BY WW EDITORIAL STAFF | 503-243-2122
[April 30th, 2008]
Crime victims are the last people who need hassles. And this measure aims squarely at eliminating a unique problem. The Oregon Constitution gives them certain rights, such as the right to be heard at sentencing, to be consulted about plea negotiations, and to receive prompt restitution.
But here’s the catch: The law gives them no way to enforce those rights. It’s an absurd snafu that exists only in Oregon and Virginia. And it’s because law enforcement and prosecutors were afraid that giving teeth to victims’ rights would gum up the system when Oregon voters passed the original victims’ rights law in 1999.
Experience in other states shows those fears are unfounded. Measure 51 provides the fix by giving crime victims the right to seek relief in the state Court of Appeals if their constitutionally enshrined rights are violated. Crime Victims United and Attorney General Hardy Myers are Measure 51’s prime backers, along with all the state’s district attorneys. Criminal defense lawyers and the ACLU helped draft the measure. If Crime Victims United and the ACLU can agree on this, so do we. Vote yes.
Video of WW endorsement interview (thanks to Portland Community Media)
You are WRONG about the ACLU. They do not endorse these measures. From their website:
"Ballot Measures 51 and 52 would amend constitutional provisions in the Oregon Bill of Rights that provide specific rights to victims in criminal proceedings.
The ACLU opposed these so-called “victims rights” measures when they were first approved by voters in 1999 (Measures 69 and 71) because they not only created rights for crime victims but also eliminated or weakened rights guaranteed in the state constitution to people accused of committing crimes. We also opposed them at that time because they gave prosecutors the sole power to determine who was and was not a “victim,” allowing prosecutors to exclude victims who disagreed with the DA’s strategy in the case (such as seeking the death penalty, etc.).
Measures 51 and 52 would amend those provisions to provide a “remedy” for victims when the rights guaranteed under these provisions are violated. Generally, ACLU believes that there should be remedies to rights provided to individuals in the Oregon Bill of Rights. These measures would allow victims to seek judicial review of a DA’s refusal to recognize a victim and other rights.
However, because we still oppose the underlying provisions that weakened the Oregon Bill of Rights, the ACLU of Oregon is “neutral” on Measures 51 and 52."
Measures 51 and 52 are supported by Crime Victims United and Kevin Mannox. They would give teeth to some constitutional amendments that “victims’ rights” advocates passed in 1999. What these two measures do is give crime victims more power in the courts. I believe the power to punish should rest squarely in the hands of the state, not with individual victims. As a progressive crime survivor, I am incensed that Crime Victims United would suggest I support their reactionary, right-wing agenda. These “victims rights” measures allow frightened and vindictive crime victims to make life miserable for both accused and convicted persons. Is that the direction we want our justice system headed? I don’t think so.
Bottom line: people who propose measures should have the burden of proof that these new measures are needed and will not have unintended consequences. Measures 51, 52, and 53 have not convinced me and I will vote “no.” Our state would be much better off if people voted “no” on measures like these and sent them back to the drawing board.
I think victims do not have enough rights . If you home get's broke in to the cops do not even show up . what's with that? Any way, When they do their job we wont have to.
Beloof's absolutely correct that the present situation is one where rights have no remedy, but the larger question is whether those rights should even exist. What's the point of, for example, a victim's family member venting their grievances to a serial killer? The State, in the aggregate, brings criminal proceedings, so the 'personal' element should be entirely removed.
Say goodby to a fare trile those who are acused of domistic violence
ACLU Oregon's website says that they are taking a neutral stance on measures 51, 52, and 53. How can this be construed as agreement with Crime Victims United or support of the measure?